Door blows out during ground test on Boeing 777X jet
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
several tests, static load test, final load test, and ultimate load test. I seem to remember final load test was 75% of ultimate? For ultimate, they take it to the ultimate load, and hold for 3 seconds....it appears from the press, it failed under final load, and they never got to ultimate...
Then, there is the "official" word from Boeing..
New York (AFP) - Boeing has suspended testing on its new long-haul 777X aircraft, the company said Friday, a setback that comes as it battles to rebound from the crisis surrounding the 737 MAX.
The so-called "final load" tests are part of the aircraft certification process, overseen by inspectors from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and meant to subject the plane to "loads and stresses well beyond normal operational loads," a Boeing spokesman told AFP in an email.
https://news.yahoo.com/boeing-suspen...013019287.html
"During final load testing on the 777X static test airplane, the team encountered an issue that required suspension of the test," the spokesman said.
"The testing conditions were well beyond any load expected in commercial service. The event is under review and the team is working to understand root cause."
Then, there is the "official" word from Boeing..
New York (AFP) - Boeing has suspended testing on its new long-haul 777X aircraft, the company said Friday, a setback that comes as it battles to rebound from the crisis surrounding the 737 MAX.
The so-called "final load" tests are part of the aircraft certification process, overseen by inspectors from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and meant to subject the plane to "loads and stresses well beyond normal operational loads," a Boeing spokesman told AFP in an email.
https://news.yahoo.com/boeing-suspen...013019287.html
"During final load testing on the 777X static test airplane, the team encountered an issue that required suspension of the test," the spokesman said.
"The testing conditions were well beyond any load expected in commercial service. The event is under review and the team is working to understand root cause."
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They would have a lot of questions in private. How often do we see the FAA announcing failures during the construction or testing process? Probably never. They leave that up to the corporate PR folks.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Cape Town, ZA
Age: 62
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoichiro Tozuka, president of Subaru’s aerospace unit, notes that the aluminum/titanium wing box that the company produces for the 777-8 and -9 is considerably heavier than that it builds for the legacy 777 programme.
He adds that the new wing-box uses considerably more titanium than the previous 777 wing-box. “We use a lot of titanium parts, which we have experience with from 787 center wing-box production.”
The 777X wing-box is definitely not the same as the 777 design: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ncy-co-454156/
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the wing has the max +g load the fuselage has a high bending load tension at the top. A heavy landing might cause slightly higher bending moment but the sense is the same. I have never calculated the shear but I expect a heavy landing would be the worst case.
Freight doors being at the lower half of the hull would require some strange shape changes to pop off as it would be under longitudinal compression.
Freight doors being at the lower half of the hull would require some strange shape changes to pop off as it would be under longitudinal compression.
When the wing has the max +g load the fuselage has a high bending load tension at the top. A heavy landing might cause slightly higher bending moment but the sense is the same. I have never calculated the shear but I expect a heavy landing would be the worst case.
Freight doors being at the lower half of the hull would require some strange shape changes to pop off as it would be under longitudinal compression.
Freight doors being at the lower half of the hull would require some strange shape changes to pop off as it would be under longitudinal compression.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends on the test restraints. If only the wing and center wing box were to be tested there would be no reason to have the fuselage there at all. From strength calculation point of view the box is not that difficult, the fuselage part connecting to it is.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have any experience of this kind of testing but surely between the various phases (such as wing load test and pressure tests) the entire airframe would be checked over for any unintended damage as a result of the previously completed test forces.
Isn’t this much more likely to be a single event such as a damaged, poorly fabricated, mis-aligned or poorly installed locking mechanism? (if indeed it was the lock mechanism which failed)
Isn’t this much more likely to be a single event such as a damaged, poorly fabricated, mis-aligned or poorly installed locking mechanism? (if indeed it was the lock mechanism which failed)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edmund
At least they were present, but surprised they were "quiet" after the event. I would expect they would have had questions.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we get too hard on Boeing over this incident, let’s not forget that the whole point of this kind of testing is to break stuff on the ground so that it doesn’t break in the air.
Computer modelling and much over the years placed on it - is just not what it was expected to be.
From the original 777 test programme showing the wing bend causing rippling of the fuselage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sounds exactly like the DC-10. Cargo door blow out in pressurization test, cabin floor collapsed. Analysis showed mechanics had not completed the latching process. Convair, subcontractor for the fuselage, performed a FMEA, said this is going to happen in production because the latching mechanism is a Rube Goldberg affair. MD altered the FMEA before submitting to the FAA. Result was first AA96 incident over Windsor, Ontario, in which the pilot was able to save the partially loaded plane. Next was TH 981 over Senlis, France, in which 346 people died. Lawsuits unveiled agreement between FAA chief and MD CEO not to issue an AD after the Windsor incident so 346 people were sentenced to death. Lawsuit uncovered the true Convair FMEA prior to MD doctoring it before submission. Resulted in the beginning of the end of MD. Hopefully Boeing remembers the lessons learned that resulted in them becoming the owner of a decimated McDonnell Douglas.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sources told Harger that the door came flying off when Boeing was testing the maximum cabin pressure, whilst the aircraft was positioned in its test rig.
"The accident happened to what’s called the “static test airplane,” one of the two airplanes in any new jet program that are built for ground testing only and will never fly. It was during the final test that must be passed as part of the airplane’s certification by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
On Friday, according to Boeing employees, caution tape was attached to all the entry doors and no one was allowed into the building."
The cabin should have been tested several times before now...this was the final test, not the first. It will be interesting to see what phase of the testing the failure happened, how close to final or ultimate load it got.
Blowing your stuff up on the final cert test in front of the FAA and probably a bunch of international certification regulators....damn.
"The accident happened to what’s called the “static test airplane,” one of the two airplanes in any new jet program that are built for ground testing only and will never fly. It was during the final test that must be passed as part of the airplane’s certification by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
On Friday, according to Boeing employees, caution tape was attached to all the entry doors and no one was allowed into the building."
The cabin should have been tested several times before now...this was the final test, not the first. It will be interesting to see what phase of the testing the failure happened, how close to final or ultimate load it got.
Blowing your stuff up on the final cert test in front of the FAA and probably a bunch of international certification regulators....damn.
Last edited by Smythe; 7th Sep 2019 at 16:41.
Didn't they flatten the frames inside the X-cabin in order to win some inches of cabin diameter for the 777X? And hasn't the floor structure material been modified compared to the -300ER? Methinks it's made of CFRP now. Might lead to different bending under extreme cabin pressure?